[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, November 21, 1995
.0905 
[English]
The Chairman: I call this meeting to order.
We have Mary Simon, the ambassador of circumpolar affairs, as a witness this morning, accompanied by her colleague, Patricia Low-Bédard.
I welcome Mary Simon. Thank you for coming before the committee. As I explained to you prior to the meeting, Ms Simon, the committee is seriously thinking of doing an in-depth study into the Arctic and into circumpolar issues. It would relate to all issues in your mandate, including the environment and the strategic, economic and other issues that relate to Canada's north from an international perspective. We are very grateful to you for your help in coming to us today and explaining some of these issues. I know the members are looking forward to having an opportunity to ask questions.
Perhaps you could start with a short introductory statement about the way the circumpolar conference is developing and your reflections on it. Then we could open for questions. Thank you very much.
Ms Mary Simon (Circumpolar Ambassador, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): Thank you very much. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. As you know, I am the ambassador for circumpolar affairs. I was appointed just a little over a year ago on October 31 as part of the government's foreign policy commitment to promote increased cooperation among the eight arctic states: Canada, the United States, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Russia.
.0910
I report to both the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I'll outline my mandate very briefly so you'll have an idea of the kinds of issues we deal with in my office.
I often represent Canada at international meetings that relate to circumpolar issues, for both the Arctic and the Antarctic. I also do a lot of consultation with interested Canadians, particularly with northern governments, aboriginal groups in the north, and territorial and provincial governments. I'm also coordinating federal efforts on circumpolar issues and I chair an interdepartmental committee that brings twelve departments together on a regular basis to discuss arctic issues.
One of the priorities I was given when I was appointed was to advance Canada's Arctic Council initiative. It will be a new forum for multilateral cooperation on arctic issues. The members are the eight arctic states I mentioned at the beginning of my statement.
The goal is to establish this Arctic Council by early 1996 with an inaugural meeting of the foreign ministers of the arctic states in Canada. The details of exactly when and where this meeting will be taking place are still being worked out. We hope to have a very extensive discussion about it at next week's Toronto meeting to try to finalize the Arctic Council declaration.
I'd like to tell you a little bit about the history of this initiative and describe the objectives and the structure.
The creation of the Arctic Council of the eight arctic nations was first proposed formally by Canada in 1989, although the concept dates back at least two decades. The other seven arctic states support the initiative, and consultations have taken place over the last three years. Canadian northern aboriginal leaders and the governments of the Northwest Territories, the Yukon, the State of Alaska and Greenland have also been consulted and have pledged their support for the council.
An effective council could bring about benefits. Canadians and others would have a forum in which to make collective decisions that would help resolve crucial matters facing us all in northern regions. In this regard the Arctic Council is intended to go well beyond the arctic environmental protection strategy.
The council will consider a broad range of issues with economic, social, cultural and other dimensions. For the first time, the arctic's governments, organizations and peoples together could formally identify and act on priority problems of common concern. The Arctic Council could also become a major circumpolar forum contributing to international cooperation and peace.
In addition to the eight member nations, three organizations representing the majority of indigenous peoples throughout the circumpolar Arctic will be permanent participants in the council. They are: the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, an organization that represents the Inuit of Alaska, Canada, Greenland and the eastern part of Russia in Chukotka, the Saami Council and the Association of Indigenous Minorities of the North, Siberia and the Far East of the Russian Federation. This permanent participant status recognizes the primary interests of indigenous peoples in the Arctic and provides for their meaningful participation in the council.
.0915
I should point out at this time that this level of participation of indigenous peoples is unique in international fora, where such groups are ordinarily observers and not participants. In this way, the Arctic Council breaks new ground in creating a framework that allows those who are directly affected by government policies - in this case the indigenous peoples, who in most cases are in the majority in arctic populations - to participate in the discussion of the issues that affect them and to influence the decision-making process among member states.
The Arctic Council will be an intergovernmental forum to promote cooperation and concerted action and to bring political focus to addressing the urgent issues affecting the circumpolar north. These issues go beyond those related to the protection of the environment and include the economic development of northern regions, the utilization of renewable and non-renewable resources, circumpolar trade, the improvement of transportation and communication systems, the health and welfare of northern residents, tourism development, and cultural exchange.
The objectives and activities of the council will be grouped under two main initiatives: the already existing arctic environmental protection strategy, in which the eight arctic states have participated since 1991, and an arctic sustainable development initiative, which is being developed. Sustainable development is both the goal and the integrating concept of the Arctic Council, to incorporate not only environmental protection, but also the economic and social aspects of the arctic agenda.
Canada will host the next ministerial meeting of the arctic environmental protection strategy in Inuvik on March 20 and 21 of next year. The arctic environmental protection strategy has accomplished a great deal of positive work in a relatively short period of time. Rather than duplicate the AEPS, as we call it, the council will incorporate it as a cornerstone.
One of the essential objectives of the Arctic Council is to advance in concrete ways the principle of sustainable development. Sustainable development refers to planned development that is clearly within the carrying capacity of arctic and global ecosystems. Such development must contribute to a safe and healthy environment as well as safeguard the cultures of indigenous peoples and respect their fundamental rights, values, and priorities.
When development is initiated by others, efforts should be made to achieve an adequate measure of social justice through direct participation of indigenous peoples through all stages of the planning process. Environmental and social impact assessment and monitoring are basic requirements. Also, we must ensure that the benefits of development accrue to northern peoples in a manner acceptable to them.
The sustainability of planned development should be measured in terms of both present and future generations. In this regard, we must avoid any severe limitations of future options. In carrying out the important objectives of the council, the arctic states are committed to ensuring respect for and use of the knowledge and experience of indigenous peoples. This is a principle of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development and is one of the accepted principles of cooperation through the council.
Often I've been asked certain questions, and some of them relate to these questions. How will the Arctic Council benefit peoples of the Arctic? Well, in terms of relating to people at the grassroots level, the council will provide an opportunity to address many local, regional, and national issues internationally for action and discussion among all arctic countries. It will be the responsibility of representatives of indigenous organizations to bring forward community concerns to the council if such concerns are not already being addressed.
The Arctic Council will provide a unique forum for the governments of the eight arctic countries to seek consensus-based solutions for problems facing the Arctic, in close collaboration with northern peoples.
.0920
The open agenda of the council will allow it to address an extensive range of issues. The council will meet at a ministerial level biannually. The chair and secretariat of the council will rotate concurrently every two years among the eight arctic states, beginning with Canada in 1996.
Another question has been raised: will the Arctic Council create duplication and add to what some might see as a proliferation of organizations? Will it simply add another level of bureaucracy?
Certainly the purpose of the council is not to duplicate important and ongoing initiatives such as the arctic environmental protection strategy or the Barents Euro-Arctic Council or the Canada-Russia agreement on cooperation in the Arctic and in the north.
The Arctic Council is designed to be an umbrella organization with a strong coordinating function. The council will reinforce the initiatives and organizations that are already working to address and resolve arctic issues and focus attention on areas where more cooperative efforts are needed. Most importantly, it will bring high-level political attention to arctic issues, especially in developing new ways of cooperation, sharing of expertise, and cost-sharing of resolving many important issues.
In terms of the initial set-up, we plan to have the secretariat in place by the end of this year in order to begin preparing for the launch of the council and its inaugural meeting. The secretariat will be supported by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. At present the details are still being worked out.
It is envisaged that the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade will provide an executive director and a secretary to the secretariat while the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs will provide an executive officer and a junior trainee.
The trainee will be an individual from Nunavut, who will participate under the auspices of the Nunavut professional development program of the Canadian Centre for Management Development.
Operations and maintenance funding of $275,000 over two years will be provided by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
It is hoped that office space for the four-member secretariat can be found in one of the supporting departments in order to keep costs down.
My office, which consists of myself and Patricia Low-Bédard and a secretary, will continue to function and will retain its policy development and directing role in concert with the circumpolar liaison directorate at the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, which also provides support for my mandate.
The secretariat will manage all of the administrative and logistical arrangements for the first formal ministerial meeting of the council in 1998, as well as for the preparatory meetings of senior officials.
In terms of the current situation, it was only in February of this year that the U.S. confirmed its support for the Arctic Council when President Clinton visited Canada. Before that, the U.S. had been reluctant to support the council, and the other arctic states had told Canada that they did not see the council as being viable without the U.S.
Having succeeded in gaining U.S. support, we have been able over the past summer to conduct extensive discussions and to produce a draft declaration for the establishment of the council. There have been two meetings of senior officials in June and September. The next one is scheduled for the end of this month in Toronto, where the eight arctic states will discuss the arctic environmental protection strategy and move forward on the draft declaration for the creation of the Arctic Council and other various issues outstanding from the last two rounds of negotiations.
A true partnership may finally be emerging where government and indigenous peoples and other northern peoples can together develop a vision for the Arctic wherein national agendas can be harmonized and cultural diversity encouraged. If this is to be achieved it is my hope that we can quickly move on to properly define and apply the principles of sustainable and equitable development to the Arctic. It is clear that the Arctic Council is intended to be action oriented and results oriented.
.0925
Like any forum, the Arctic Council will have reasonable limitations. For example, not all concerns can possibly be addressed at once. Priorities will have to be identified, both domestically and internationally. Ultimately the effectiveness of the council will depend upon the joint efforts of all those involved.
I was very pleased to hear from the chairman that this committee is interested in doing further work on circumpolar issues, because once the Arctic Council is created we're going to have to decide on what the key priorities are and what the main issues are that require attention at the multilateral level. We've started identifying those issues through discussions, but any assistance that we can get help on in terms of doing research or in terms of helping us shape the agenda for the Arctic Council would be extremely helpful.
As you know, the government has very limited resources these days, so we don't have a lot of people working on this file. If the committee is interested in doing some work on circumpolar issues, we would certainly welcome it.
That's all I have to say for the moment, and I would be happy to try to answer any of the questions that the committee members might have.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms Simon.
Mr. Mills.
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): I guess my first question is this. I've read a little bit about what's involved with the development of Nunavut in terms of the bureaucracy, etc. I wonder if there's a comparable development in some other arctic countries where you take a primarily native population and develop a whole province or whatever you want to call it. Is there a comparable development in one of the other countries?
Ms Simon: The country that is somewhat comparable is the home rule in Greenland. The Inuit of Greenland have negotiated with Denmark a home rule government; it was established in 1979. Through its evolution a lot of the different departments or issues that were historically the responsibility of Denmark have been transferred to the home rule government. Although the structure of the home rule government is different from that of the Nunavut, those are the two areas that you can compare in some way because the majority of the population in Greenland is Inuit, or rather Greenlandic.
Mr. Mills: It seems like a huge cost considering the number of people and the costs that are being projected for the development of the bureaucracy, etc. Have you looked at that in terms of comparing it to other provinces, etc.? The cost just seems exorbitant.
Ms Simon: There is a bit of a history to why the Nunavut Inuit feel this is a good thing. I was on the commission that was established by the government to advise the federal government on the creation of Nunavut. I was on that commission until I was appointed to this position that I'm in now.
Cost was clearly an issue that was at the top of the agenda in terms of the research - to try to ensure that in fact we were not creating a new government that would cost Canadian taxpayers more money. We were convinced - and I believe that they still are - that this will be a cost-saving measure for Canada in the long term, because historically there has been a lot of duplication in terms of government services related to the north. It doesn't matter where you are in the north, whether you're in the east or the west. There have been layers of bureaucracy that have administered the north for years: you have the federal government, you have the territorial government, where I come from you have the Quebec government, and then you have the local municipalities. There were always these layers of duplicated effort.
.0930
We're hoping, I think rightfully so, that once the Nunavut government is set up and the employment rate goes up in terms of the local people, that will reduce the welfare dependency, get rid of a lot of the duplication that has gone on in terms of services and programs, and create employment for the people in the region. I think in the long term the cost will definitely be lower than it is. People have been focusing on the upfront costs, which are probably higher than they will be in years to come.
Mr. Mills: Do you see it becoming self-sustaining at some point?
Ms Simon: It depends on what kind of agreements the Nunavut Territory is able to reach with the federal government in terms of resources and resources exploitation.
Right now there have been really intense negotiations with the existing Northwest Territories on the agreement between the territories and the federal government on transfer payments and resource development revenues. I think a lot of that will depend on the kind of arrangements the new Nunavut Territory can negotiate with federal Canada. I'm not sure if it will ever completely eliminate the subsidies that provinces and territories depend on in relation to the federal government.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Speller.
Mr. Speller (Haldimand - Norfolk): Thank you for coming before the committee. I have a question regarding what this new organization essentially will be doing and how our interests in the Canadian north as represented by you will be put forward.
You talked about trade issues and maybe security issues. In the first few years where do you see this playing out? What sort of issues will be the priority? How will Canada's interests be further benefited by that? When I think of interests in the north I think of things like the Northwest Passage and the problems we have with the Americans. Will an organization like this help in terms of our position there or some of the positions taken by the Europeans in the fur industry, for instance? How will an organization like this help Canada's position vis-à-vis the Europeans with regard to fur?
Ms Simon: First of all, there is an existing agreement between the arctic nations on environmental questions, which is called the arctic environment protection strategy. That has done a lot of good work. They've done a lot of research and monitoring and have started to identify some of the problems related to environmental issues.
One problem is the contaminants that are being found in the food chain in the north, the resulting effects that may have on the human population, and what the arctic countries should do in order to try to rectify the problem and the source of where it's coming from.
Environmental issues would certainly be one of the key priority issues. Within that category of environmental issues there are different issues, such as the contaminants question. That would be one area that I think Canada, in terms of its multilateral cooperation, would continue benefiting from. Maybe we'll benefit even more under an umbrella organization that not only deals with environmental questions but also has a key initiative that deals with sustainable development. Clearly environmental problems and development issues are ultimately linked.
.0935
We're hoping that when the sustainable development initiative will be established under the Arctic Council, through that initiative we will be able to identify how northern peoples can benefit in more concrete ways in terms of jobs, employment - not just in the traditional sense, because the age group in the north, especially amongst the aboriginal peoples...50% and over are under the age of 25. These young people are much more educated in academic terms than aboriginal peoples in the north have been historically. So they're looking for jobs; they're looking for new opportunities in business development. In that way, I think the cooperation amongst the arctic nations can look at solutions in this area.
Mr. Speller: How do you see Canada vis-à-vis some of these other countries in terms of where our aboriginal peoples are in terms of income or jobs or health? Where do we stand compared to Russia or Denmark?
Ms Simon: The Canadian north is very advanced in technology and health and other services, so there is really no comparison between, let's say, the Canadian north and the Russian north. In terms of the Nordic countries it's more comparable.
I was going to get to the issue you raised, which is the question of the fur trade. That could potentially benefit if it were to be dealt with through the Arctic Council. Sweden and the other Nordic countries are involved in fur farming and indigenous peoples in those countries also depend on wild animal fur for their fur trade. It's not just in Canada. There have to be discussions as to how these competing interests need to be resolved so that you're not killing one aspect of it to promote another. Potentially, the fur question has a high priority on the Arctic Council agenda.
Issues such as the Northwest Passage could be discussed in an Arctic Council. It's an open-agenda concept, so any country can raise items for discussion in the Arctic Council. So if Canada were to propose a discussion on the Northwest Passage and the eight arctic members agreed, then it could be discussed.
The only thing that the countries feel should not be on the Arctic Council agenda is military questions - strategic, sensitive questions related to military activity. We have said that we don't want the military excluded in all terms, because a lot of environmental issues are related to military activities that aren't necessarily sensitive or strategic and these could benefit from discussion by an Arctic Council - such as nuclear waste, the dumping of waste into the Arctic Ocean, and so on.
Canada has a lot to gain from this initiative.
The Chairman: Mr. Morrison.
Mr. Morrison (Swift Current - Maple Creek - Assiniboia): You've already touched briefly on my question, Ms Simon, but I'd like you to give a bit more emphasis.
.0940
I guess you could say the arctic islands are now recognized as Canadian territory by virtue of the doctrine of effective occupation, but practically nobody seems to recognize our rights to the open sea between some of these islands. As a matter of fact, when people navigate up there they don't ask us if they may; they tell us they are going to do it or have done it. The Americans and the Russians run submarines up there with impunity and they don't even tell us when they are there.
In your capacity as ambassador, have you addressed this particular question of the freedom of the sea among the arctic islands? Has this been discussed at all? If so, in what context?
Ms Simon: No, I have not discussed this issue with other officials in the government at this time. There's a division at Foreign Affairs that deals with this question. My office is not specifically dealing with that issue at this point. It hasn't come up.
Mr. Morrison: So it's not really an ambassadorial position but something below an ambassadorial position then. You don't deal with these matters.
Ms Simon: I'm sorry; I don't understand the question.
Mr. Morrison: Well, you don't have the clout of a full ambassador representing a country if you're not discussing these very vital questions. This is what I'm trying to find out.
Ms Simon: In terms of discussing them, there will be opportunities to discuss them. For the past year I have been really concentrating on the negotiations to create the council. There are a lot of other issues besides that one, such as the fur issue and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge issue in Alaska and the Yukon, that we have touched upon, but we just haven't had time to get into in-depth policy questions at this time.
Certainly I will have a role in these issues. As to whether I have the same clout as other ambassadors, I don't think so. I'm not a full-fledged ambassador; I'm a special appointed ambassador for circumpolar affairs. But hopefully I can influence the policies of the government through discussion with other officials in the government.
Mr. Morrison: Thank you.
The Chairman: Mr. Caccia.
Mr. Caccia (Davenport): That's the kind of ambassador we badly need, Mr. Chair, to bring in a breath of fresh air also. I would like to thank you for arranging this meeting and for the opportunity of hearing Ms Simon. This is very exciting stuff she's presented to us this morning.
The role of the council has a tremendous potential. The council itself, as you know, has been advocated for a number of years by very thoughtful academics, scientists, native people, and people who are very keen in the Canadian north. It's an idea that has finally emerged and is maturing.
It seems to me that the role of the council, particularly on security issues, is to address the non-traditional security threats that are outlined in the government's foreign policy paper of 1995. I think that is a way of catching security in a modern way, as required in the 1990s.
In that sense it would be a security that is social and economic; it would be the protection of lifestyle in particular, the protection of culture, and the enhancement of the artistic expression of the arctic people, which has gained Canada tremendous recognition abroad, as you know. It has even been copied or reproduced for the Canadian public to enjoy by white artists such as William Kurelek, whom you probably know, in his arctic paintings, which are quite revealing from a social point of view in the messages they convey.
There is an issue that has already been touched by Ms Simon, namely the question of transboundary pollution. It seems to me that transboundary pollution very badly needs to be strengthened by way of international protocols. To the best of my knowledge, we have ratified only one protocol, namely the one on sulphur dioxide, but there are many others still waiting for the international political will to gel. These are the substances that are then found in the tissue and bodies of our arctic people and are of considerable concern.
.0945
Then there is the question raised with the members of the environment committee last May, namely the leftovers of toxic material from military activities north of or along the DEW Line. Understandably, the northern people are asking that the materials be taken back to where they came from. They don't fit into the arctic landscape or into the arctic environment, and the northern people made strong representations to our committee to that effect. I believe their message was particularly strong in Campbell River.
To your astonishment, Mr. Chairman, I am sure you will be surprised to learn there is still a DEW Line station that is partially operational. We don't know who the enemy is, Mr. Chairman, but we still have a DEW Line station - and a very elaborate one - operating with radar screens trying to make sure we are alerted should enemy planes, probably from Mars, descend on us.
Mr. Mills: Maybe it's CSIS.
Mr. Caccia: Well, that's a very interesting interpretation.
The Chairman: I think the UFOs are more in the area of the environment committee's concern at this point in time, Mr. Caccia, than they are in this committee's, which is restricting itself to terrestrial activities.
Mr. Caccia: We are sustainable development people, and I'm very glad to hear the definition given by Ms Simon this morning, and the various interpretations.
Finally, it seems to me that the arctic strategy ought to include dealing with the nuclear submarines of the Russian fleet, but to my knowledge it does not. These are floating Chernobyls, Mr. Chairman. They pose a threat to the eastern Arctic that was raised with us last May. They are also threatening, of course, the Scandinavian arctic regions, with no precedents. The decommissioning and the cost of that decommissioning are the issues, as is the necessity, to perhaps bring U.S. and Canadian technologies to the attention of Russian authorities to develop with them ways of decommissioning these damn submarines, some fifty of them, that are posing a health threat to the people in the Russian Arctic, as well as potentially to the people in the Finnish, Norwegian, Greenland and Canadian Arctic as well.
This is perhaps an ideal issue to be placed on the agenda for the Arctic Council at its first meeting. It is an issue that will require a lot of political will. The technological know-how is there. It is therefore inconceivable that the Government of Russia can get away with that kind of uncertainty, that kind of sword of Damocles hanging on the head of the arctic populations across the seven or eight nations that are affected.
So I am very grateful for this opportunity to hear Ms Simon and for the opportunity to make this presentation.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
Mr. Caccia: ``Don't you think so?'' is my question.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chairman: Did you wish to consider any one of those statements as a question, Ms Simon?
Ms Simon: I can comment very briefly on a couple of them.
In terms of the transboundary pollution and international protocol, negotiations are going on right now for an agreement on persistent organic pollution. The agreement may not be finalized by the time the ministerial meeting takes place in March, but the discussion we've had is that in 1996 or early 1997, Canada and the other arctic countries hope to have a protocol agreement in this area. Norway is taking the lead on this one, and we hope to have something there in the near future.
.0950
I'm not sure if you are aware of this but in terms of the DEW Line clean-up, an individual by the name of Anne Charles has been appointed as special negotiator with the U.S. on this issue. She's been having discussions with the Americans on how to fund this clean-up, on how the Americans can assist in the funding of this activity. The last time I spoke to her, they hadn't concluded an agreement but she was optimistic that an agreement between Canada and the U.S. could be reached. So that's just a little bit of information.
In terms of the Arctic Council agenda on nuclear waste, I agree with you that this is a very serious problem in the Arctic. It may be coming from Russia, but it's not contained in Russia once the waste gets dumped into the Arctic Ocean. With the currents and everything, I'm sure part of the transboundary pollution effects we are feeling in Canada have a lot to do with the pollution coming from eastern Europe. I certainly hope this is an area that will be given a lot of priority in the Arctic Council. This committee can make recommendations to the Government of Canada in terms of what some of these priority issues might be for an Arctic Council agenda at the outset, and this is an area that clearly requires attention.
The Chairman: Mr. Flis.
Mr. Flis (Parkdale - High Park): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, you and this committee are making history today. This is the first time in the history of Canada and the Canadian Parliament that we have the ambassador for circumpolar affairs appearing before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
Let me congratulate you on your appointment, Ms Simon. I think it is high time that we have someone of your calibre heading up that position.
Everything we are talking about.... I'd like to support the concerns Mr. Caccia has explored about nuclear contamination up in the Arctic. You have already mentioned the contaminants that have gotten into the ecosystem and that are poisoning the milk of mothers feeding their babies, etc. The threatened European Union ban on Canadian furs is going to destroy much of the livelihood of the indigenous people. Almost anything that's happening there, and any issue you raise, focuses on the impacts and damaging effects on the people living up in the Arctic. One wonders where you even begin to help. Do you begin on all fronts? Do you begin in one area?
One thing I have heard suggested was whether or not it is possible to have a teacher training college for the eight arctic countries and for the indigenous people, rather than having the teachers come to Ottawa or Toronto or Hamilton to learn and then go to try to teach the indigenous children. Is that something the Arctic Council, or you as ambassador in touch with other ambassadors, could look into?
In the past, we've always talked about the Arctic but we've forgotten about the local people. I'm pleased to see and hear that this is where you're coming from. You're looking at involving permanently the indigenous people, so again I'd like to hear your views on where we begin, on where our priorities are, and on how we can keep from losing sight of the damage that we've already done to these people.
I stayed with an Inuit family. Their son had committed suicide, and we know of and read of the high suicide rate. All of these things I have mentioned, and those that I have not mentioned, I'm sure are contributing to that high suicide rate.
.0955
Where do you begin?
Ms Simon: That's a good question. I think you hit a very important point when you talked about education as being an area that should be given priority.
Historically, one of the problems in the north has been that the native people were not able to learn through their culture and their language, through the education system. That has had, over the long term, I think, a demoralizing effect on the identity of the people because the traditional culture of the Inuit has been lost to a large extent, and a lot of it has to do with the education system that has been in place for many years in the north. It probably wasn't intended to be that way, but it's a result of not having in place an education system where you can promote your own language and your own culture.
That is changing somewhat in the north, but probably not to the degree that it should be. I think one of the ways in which it could be advanced is through the cooperation of the arctic nations. I think in Canada we have regions such as where I come from in northern Quebec...a teacher-training program that is quite unique. It's developed through McGill University. The region I come from is one of the regions that has the most native teachers at this point in time. So there's probably a lot that can be learned from different regions in this area - a lot that can be learned from some of the failures. We can learn to do things differently.
By bringing back their pride and integrity, I think the younger generation will become mentally healthier - not just physically but mentally healthier. As a result of that, the social problems and the suicide rate, which is so high in the north, could potentially be reduced a lot.
This is certainly an area that I think requires priority attention by the arctic nations. It has been addressed very extensively through the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, which is the international organization that I mentioned earlier. At the non-governmental level there's been a lot of discussion in this area.
Mr. Flis: How do we convince the Europeans that their threat to ban Canadian furs really affects the lifestyle of these people? We've had parliamentarians from the European Union come and visit the Arctic. I was with one delegation where the speaker of the Northwest Territories spoke to them and explained how they trap in quadrants. By the time they come back to the first quadrant there's a whole new breed of animal that has come, so the animals will never disappear. He also pointed out to them the research that we've done into our trapping with rubber leg-hold traps, with instant-kill traps, etc. Yet all this work that we appear to be doing with European parliamentarians seems to be falling on deaf ears.
As this speaker of their parliament said - he's an Inuit - in every family where you take the trapping business away, they usually become alcoholics or they go on drugs. In every family where the fur business is saved, the family has self-esteem and the traditional way of making a living is preserved. Yet somehow this message is not getting to the Europeans. Maybe through working with seven other countries we can get that message across.
.1000
Ms Simon: We are hoping that this will help in the long term, but there is a short-term urgency to this fur issue. As you know, the regulation is supposed to go into action at the beginning of the year, and there has been a lot of lobbying on the part of native leaders to change the minds of the parliamentarians in Europe.
I was reading through some of the transcripts of broadcast reports recently that came from the BBC and other radio programs in England particularly, and they are very close-minded about the arguments that are being made in relation to the wild fur industry. They just see it as a very cruel thing. I am not sure how you get people like that to change their minds. They are very clearly supportive of the animal welfare groups.
There has been discussion about delaying the regulation for another year, but that is a very short-term solution. In fact, I was meeting with some of our people in the department yesterday, and a short-term delay would be good in terms of continuing to try to work out the standards, but in terms of all the effort that people have put into this issue in the last few months from the native groups, it would be a real loss.
So we are hoping that through the Arctic Council we can start discussing how the eight arctic countries can cooperate on trade issues. This is clearly a very big trade issue for Canada. I guess you know that just in terms of statistics over 90% of Canadian fur that is exported is wild fur. There are over 100,000 Canadians who work in this industry, and about 80,000 of those are northern native people. It is clearly a very important area for the Government of Canada. So we will certainly make sure that it is put on the agenda for the Arctic Council.
Mr. Flis: Thank you.
The Chairman: Mr. English.
Mr. English (Kitchener): Most of my questions have been asked, but I congratulate you, as Mr. Flis did, on your appointment, and I think it is very important for the Canadian government.
My question relates to something you said before. I was at a conference about fifteen years ago and the Canadian Arctic in terms of its development, if you like, was compared very unfavourably to the Soviet Union. You can find articles from that period making comparisons, saying that the Soviets have built cities above the Arctic Circle that have hundreds of thousands of people and their level of infrastructure development is much more advanced than ours.
You can find it in works such as Jim Lotz's. You can find it indeed in the work of academics. You can find comments on education, for example, in Senator Landon Pearson's book on Soviet education, where she compares Soviet education in their arctic area with Canadian education, much to the disadvantage of the Canadian system, saying that the Soviets had done this quite well.
You made the comment earlier that in comparison with Russia we are so much more advanced. You seemed to be referring to infrastructure, but perhaps you were going farther and saying that there is no comparison to be made because we are so much more advanced. Is this the case of the east German phenomenon, that in fact we thought east Germany was so much more prosperous than it really was? I don't want to depreciate the work of academics or senators, but why is it that we now seem to have become more advanced than they are?
.1005
Ms Simon: I've been to the Russian north a couple of times and have talked extensively with the northern peoples of Russia. The conditions in which they live, in terms of infrastructure, are very much lower than what we have in the Canadian north. I'm not saying all our problems are resolved in the Canadian north, but the question was quite specific earlier in terms of....
Mr. English: You talked about education in answering Mr. Flis. If I recall Senator Pearson's book correctly, she talked about education in indigenous language and the books they use. She claims they are approaching this question much more successfully. Did you find, in education, that they were more advanced than us?
Ms Simon: No. In fact, most of the younger generation have lost their language in the Russian north. I've talked directly with these people, especially with certain individuals who have been involved in the educational system. The system might be very good in terms of teaching in the Soviet language, but in the native language it has been extremely weak. In fact, most of the young generation have lost their language. That's what the native leaders say now in the north.
There's the infrastructure of the Russian north in terms of the schools and in terms of the environmental pollution people are faced with. I think development was for the day and nothing was planned for the future in terms of standards.
So there's a lot of pollution in the Russian north, which is having a very adverse effect on the people in terms of their health. Also, the animals and fish these people would normally depend on are no longer edible in many areas.
I look at those things and then I look at the conditions in the Canadian north in terms of housing, schools and health centres. Although they still aren't the kinds of services northerners would like to see, they are a lot better than what people are faced with in the Russian north.
Mr. English: Thanks very much.
The Chairman: I wonder if I could follow up with a few questions for Ms Simon. But perhaps I should make an observation following up on Mr. Flis's observation. Please don't think this is the only time we've made history in this committee. We often make history in this committee, and we're pleased that you're a part of that process.
I would like to follow up with your observation about the level of participation of native peoples in the work of the council and how you see that evolving. You mentioned that as being different from other international organizations and I wonder if you could tell us in what way it's different.
In what way will this presence be different from what would have already been represented in the forum of the Northwest Territories government, or the Nunavut government, who after all have their constituents represented? Is there a whole series now of overlapping, where certain groups will be almost like special interest groups within it? For example, would an Inuit group sit together as a block, as in the European Community Parliament, so you wouldn't have a separate Russian, American, or Canadian Inuit group, but rather a group that would represent all of the nations so there would be some effort to bring people together in the north? Will they be retained as different national groups? How will it be structured? It sounds like this is an important initiative and one we should understand better.
Ms Simon: Thank you. The council structure is envisaged in three parts. The first part would be the eight arctic countries. It's going to be an intergovernmental organization, so the members that vote would be the eight arctic nations.
.1010
So they're the ones making the decisions in the council deliberations. Because up to now northerners have often felt excluded from these initiatives, there has been a strong effort on the part of Canada to include them in this particular initiative. This is also due to the fact that the issues the Arctic Council will ultimately deal with have a direct impact on northern people, particularly the indigenous people.
So in order to compensate for the fact that most national governments don't have direct involvement of native people in their delegations, either as members of Parliament or people at the senior level such as myself, we would bring them in through the non-governmental process. That's the second category of participants in the council. This second category includes international indigenous organizations such as the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, the Saami Council and the Russians.
They don't have voting power and they're not envisaged as having any decision-making power. But they will be invited to be part of the deliberations and they would have a seat at the table - one seat for the ICC, one seat for the Saami Council and one seat for the Russian northern indigenous peoples. In the future there may be one or two more people.
They're involved in the deliberations, but they're not part of the decision. They will be invited to participate in the working groups and other bodies that will be created for the Arctic Council. So in that way they're participating; they're not being excluded.
Now in terms of the national and regional participation, you're right that in the Northwest Territories the majority of the cabinet and the MLAs are native people. That's considered a territorial government, and their role will be to be part of the national Canadian delegation. They would be invited to form part or be invited to have a representative on the national delegation, as would Nunavut, as a regional territorial government.
So there's the non-governmental participation and the government. We're making a clear distinction between governmental involvement and non-governmental involvement.
I don't know if that answers your question.
The Chairman: It does.
The model that comes to mind is the UNCITRAL, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, where quite often when they're studying odd things, non-governmental organizations that are experts in that area are invited to participate in the debates, but they don't actually get to vote unless they are a government member. So I think that's a very positive model to follow in this area.
I agree with you, I think it would be interesting to see the extent to which -
Ms Simon: Just to finish up my answer, the only other initiative that comes close to this model is the arctic environmental protection strategy, where those same organizations are invited to be permanent observers in the AEPS process. They're called observers, but in reality they participate in the discussions.
So when we started talking about the Arctic Council, we used the AEPS agreement as a model for the negotiations. But we've decided to call them what they are. They're actually participants in the deliberations but not in the decision-making.
The Chairman: You discussed environment extensively. The council, presumably, will be concerned with on-shore Canadian pollution that would be affecting the Arctic as well, would it? It wouldn't just be restricted to foreign pollution, because obviously the other arctic members are going to be as interested in our pollution as we are in theirs, I would assume.
Ms Simon: The definition of where the lines will be drawn is not necessarily something we've addressed, but it's certainly arctic and sub-arctic regions of the Canadian north. Each country defines their own north nationally, so that will all be taken into consideration.
.1015
Certainly, bilateral questions such as boundary questions will continue to be discussed bilaterally. In relation to the U.S., let's say, the Beaufort Sea will be a discussion bilaterally. It wouldn't necessarily come to the Arctic Council as an issue. In fact, the arctic countries don't really want to see boundary issues come to the Arctic Council, but would rather deal with them on a bilateral basis with the country concerned with that particular dispute.
The Chairman: Mr. Morrison mentioned the freedom of navigation issue, clearly a very important one for us. Do you think it might be left to the Law of the Sea Convention to be dealt with under that rather than under the council, then, because it seems to have been already discussed in that forum? Or do you see sort of an overlapping jurisdiction?
Ms Simon: I think there is overlap. We're going to have a discussion on the Law of the Sea in the coming months to see how we want to deal with the Arctic Council in relation to that. So maybe later on I can provide you with additional information on the discussion that we've had.
The Chairman: Thank you. I have one last question. I understand your mandate also extends to the Antarctic. While we're not immediately concerned with that, have you any observations you'd like to make to the committee about the Antarctic and what our policy is in respect of it at this particular time? Or have you had a chance to look at that yet?
Ms Simon: I can certainly give you some initial thoughts. We are in fact in the process of organizing a meeting within the Department of Foreign Affairs to discuss the results of the Antarctic treaty meeting held at the end of May in Seoul, Korea.
We're going to be looking at whether Canada should increase its involvement in Antarctic questions. Right now, the Canadian Polar Commission is also involved in discussing this issue from the research perspective, and it's related to the proposed research policy that they are preparing. So in light of the recommendations coming from the Antarctic treaty meeting, we are going to be looking at whether Canada should increase its efforts in this area.
At this time, there's been a lot of talk about limited resources and the fact the Government of Canada only has so many resources for arctic issues. How much more activity should we be engaging in Antarctic issues that would compete with these resources that are so desperately needed in the Arctic?
I personally believe there shouldn't necessarily be any competition between the two regions because I think the two could really benefit from activities in either. Many of the issues that relate to the Antarctic such as global warming, ozone depletion and environmental pollution are areas that the arctic region is concerned about.
So the research that may be done in the Antarctic could benefit policy resolutions in relation to the Arctic as well. I think there needs to be more coordination and more planning both for the Antarctic work and the Arctic.
The Chairman: Quite apart from that, I can see where there'd be a relationship between similar issues arising in the two. Are there any direct Canadian interests in the Antarctic, apart from the sort of relationship between the nature of the two areas and what we might learn from down there?
Ms Simon: I believe so. There's a lot of interest from the research side and the private sector certainly is very active in the Antarctic. Eco-tourism is becoming quite an industry in the Antarctic. I just met last weekend with a company actively involved in tourism.
.1020
So there are a lot of private sector interests in the Antarctic in terms of economic opportunities. There's a lot of active interest in terms of researchers who use other countries' stations to do their research. So reciprocal arrangements are often made between individual researchers.
So, yes, there is a direct interest in terms of Canada's role.
The Chairman: Are there any other questions? Is anyone stimulated to suggest that the committee should spend some time in the Antarctic?
Mr. Flis looks dubious.
Mr. Flis: No, I just want to pursue further the third pillar of our foreign policy that this committee helped to develop with the joint committee of the Senate, which was on propagating our culture and education, etc.
At the last Arctic Games in Norway there was an excellent example of northern native art. This might be the best vehicle for starting to share our cultural values, our art, with at least the eight countries here.
Is this going on now, and to what degree?
Ms Simon: Is this going on...?
Mr. Flis: Is the sharing of our different cultures and the sharing of the arts going on now amongst the eight countries, and to what extent?
Ms Simon: I believe that quite a lot is going on. Different art exhibitions have been put together that include art from the different regions of the north. We also have a project we've been approached on called Northern Encounters, which will bring together the Nordic countries and Canada. I don't know if Russia is involved in that as well.
Ms Patricia Low-Bédard (Senior Adviser to the Ambassador for Circumpolar Affairs, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): They're trying to.
Ms Simon: They're trying to get them interested and involved.
It's being organized to take place in Toronto, I guess in June of next year.
Ms Low-Bédard: No, in 1997.
Ms Simon: Oh, in 1997. That will bring together artists, all the musical arts, the arts and crafts of the north. It's going to be a very big event in which the Nordic countries are very keenly interested. So that's one thing that's happening.
I guess the other is that last summer the CNE had Inuit art as its key feature presentation. It was called ``Spirit of the Arctic''. It not only brought together Canadian northerners but also brought in northerners from Alaska and Greenland.
So some activity is going on in this area. There needs to be more, especially in the trade area when people look for economic opportunity. There are a lot of trade barriers in terms of the United States and Canada in this area, and that's something we've been looking at as well.
Mr. Flis: This committee has been studying how to assist small and medium-sized businesses to penetrate the export markets. What potential is there in our Arctic to promote the native works more to other countries, or even within Canada? Many Canadians still have not been exposed to the riches of the north.
Ms Simon: I believe there's a lot of potential there. The marketing of products has never been explored in any detail, except maybe for the soapstone carvings. I think the only viable activities related to community are small and medium-sized initiatives. Large-scale development in the north generally is handled by corporations and by large organizations, but when you look at the grassroots, at the community level and the kinds of activities that these people are involved in, they are very much related to the arts and crafts and even to the traditional music of the people.
.1025
I think this is an area that needs to be increased in terms of looking actively at how you can get it going. There are a lot of impediments. One is that the cost of living in the north is so high. Whenever anybody tries to start a business, the costs of setting it up generally far exceed the income projected for a particular activity.
These are things that require careful consideration. Subsidy programs do exist, but they don't always meet the level people expect. In fact, there have been a lot of cuts in that area.
Mr. Flis: How easy would it be to sensitize a committee like this to the issues of the north? We've talked about all of those issues, such as security, environment and the effects of the lifestyle of the local people. Could the north accommodate such a committee, sensitize it to the issues of the north and at the same time maybe work closely with the ambassador?
Ms Simon: Do you mean travel into the north and so on?
Mr. Flis: Yes.
Ms Simon: If we planned it in advance and organized individuals who would appear before the committee, it could be very useful, but I think there would have to be some planning related to which areas you would want to focus on.
The regions you would want to look at would have to be identified because each region has different characteristics. For example, the west is quite different from the east.
Some of the issues would require some formal presentations in terms of what has been done historically about small business development in the north. There are some people who have a lot of experience in that area. They could be invited to appear before this committee. It's very feasible.
Mr. Flis: My problem is that we take this model to the north, rather than scrapping this model and getting into the community. In other words, some members would actually visit the schools. Some members would visit the hospitals. Some members would stay overnight with a local family to really get sensitized to the issues. I wouldn't recommend this model, but something uniquely different, something in keeping with the spirit of the Arctic Council that you have in mind. Would that be easier or more difficult to organize?
Ms Simon: I don't think it would be any more difficult. It may even be more comfortable for the northern people to do it that way. It's not as formal and people may be a lot freer to talk about their own thoughts in a more informal setting. It could be organized that way.
Mr. Flis: Thank you.
Ms Simon: People always love to have guests in their homes.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms Simon, for being with us this morning. We appreciate your observations very much. You've given us a lot of food for thought. I hope we'll have an opportunity to meet with you again soon to discuss this further.
Ms Simon: Thank you very much for inviting us.
.1030
The Chairman: Before we adjourn, I would just like to point out that our next formal meeting in the schedule is next Tuesday.
There's no meeting this Thursday, but we are trying to arrange to have Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali appear before the committee, which, if that were to be organized, would be tomorrow afternoon. So we'll let you know as soon as possible whether he can fit that into his schedule. I'm informed that he likes to meet with parliamentarians as well as government officials, so if we can do it we certainly will.
Mr. Alcock (Winnipeg South): I have a comment to make on this report.
The Chairman: Okay.
Because we've lost our quorum, we're not in a position to adopt this report, but I wonder if any of the members have comments to make on it before we go. I know Mr. Morrison had one, and Mr. Alcock as well.
Mr. Morrison: I'm concerned. I thought that the steering committee was going to address the question of attendance by CIDA to defend its supplementary estimates. Now there's no provision for that and I think we're running out of time.
I don't know whether you've looked at their estimates or not, but the supplementaries are both new money and money being slid sideways to support members of the former Soviet bloc, I think to the neglect of what CIDA's mandate was, which was to look after the poorest of the poor. Because of a procedural problem, I think we're now in a position in which we're not even going to have a chance to talk to these people.
The Chairman: I understand from your observation, Mr. Morrison, that if something is going to be said about those estimates, then it will have to be done before December 7. Is that correct?
Mr. Morrison: I believe that's correct.
The Chairman: Or December 5.
So would the other members of the committee think it appropriate if we could arrange...? We'll be sitting from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. with Gordon Smith, the deputy minister, on the morning of November 28. If we could add an hour and ask CIDA to come to discuss the supplementary estimates that morning, I think that's the best time for us to do it.
Mr. Morrison: I'd appreciate that.
Would that be without the procedural snag of having to adopt things or amend things?
The Chairman: I think we can go ahead and do that. As chairman I'll just - if that's all right - arrange to speak to CIDA, and the clerk will speak to CIDA and we'll arrange to have them come, unless it's impossible for them to do it.
Mr. Morrison: Sure. If I were them, then I would say it is impossible.
The Chairman: We won't make that suggestion. We'll suggest that it is not impossible.
We'll do our best to set that up. Thank you.
Mr. Alcock: I want to raise an item for consideration. It follows on item 6 in this report, where you're making the suggestion that the committee should pursue an examination of circumpolar issues early in 1996. That's an important task for the committee, but I want to flag something else.
In the initial review done by this committee, a recommendation was made that the department should reorganize itself and create a section or a person who would begin the process of collecting information and monitoring international social policy issues. It's the whole concern about how a lot of our traditional levers relative to labour policy, etc., have moved into the international arena.
The department has done that in response to our request. They've named an assistant deputy minister or a director or whatever. I met with her awhile ago.
It's a very important area. It's one that impacts on many of our social programs, much of our labour legislation and the like, and has very broad implications in Canada. I would like to see the committee begin to do a little bit of work on that area. I think Steve will need some guidance, and I think we would all be somewhat better educated about the forces that are impacting on us right now as we try to review our own labour legislation and social policy.
So I would simply ask for consideration of that at some future date, but within my foreseeable future as opposed to the future of the country.
The Chairman: I'll bring that up with the steering committee. That's a very good point.
I understand that there's a new section in the department that includes human rights, the social policy issues to which you referred, and even environmental issues. They are trying to approach these issues in a coherent way and I think that's a very good thing, and we should perhaps be looking at how that is going to work.
.1035
A related issue I've had some discussions about with the deputy minister of immigration would be population movements, an issue of great concern to where we're going to be in the 21st century with mass movement of population. I think it relates very much to the social policy conference in Copenhagen, and we might tie a few of those things in together. So we'll have a look at that, and maybe we can discuss that together, Mr. Alcock, to see what we might do.
The other thing I should draw your attention to is that we're still trying to put together the December 7 meeting on agricultural issues. We may not be able to because of trying to fit the various players together, and we may have to move that date again, depending on what we're able to do, but I'll get back to you as soon as I can on the December 7 date.
Thank you very much. We're adjourned then until next Tuesday, subject to the possibility of a meeting tomorrow afternoon with Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali.